There are a few silly speed limits around. One glaring example is Crowe River Road. No speed signs so it is, therefore, a 50 kph road. Given the small number of dwellings this road should be signed and the limit safely increased to 60 or 70 kph. At present, when you turn off this road into Petherick's Corners the speed limit increases to 60 kph in the hamlet , which is absurd.
Enforcement stops speeding. This is from someone who has a work history. Enforcement has come a long way. The Chief of Norwood in the early sixties who was also the Town Foreman had the distance between Hydro poles marked out and used a stopwatch, only had to take the lic. Plate and once a week went into Ptbo. And the Justice of the Peace prepared and sent out the tickets. OPP in 64 had a radar on a tripod and radar machine was powered by cables attached to the battery. Technology has come a long way. Photo radar could be purchased and have it moved to where the complaints are. It could be in a box along the road or hung on a pole to stop vandalism. Stirling is considering it and Belleville has it. It would be cost effective, not only stopping speeding but part of the fines comes back to the Municipality. Cheaper than hiring more police. Would help the bottom line and curb speeding if it could be moved around. Trent Hills has the equipment to move it around. Council needs to consider this. Thanks to Councillor Savery voting against $5000.00 to do a study.
I agree 100 per cent about photo radar. It would increase enforcement and free up our handful of OPP officers to focus on crimes that technology can't fight.
I want to do a story about the area towns that are adding radar machines -- Brighton, Stirling, not sure who else.
Perhaps signage wouldn't seem so expensive if they weren't spending money on a consultant who they may or may not listen to.....
What precedent is the councillor referring to when discussing the concern of slippery slope? He is just assuming that is what would happen? What a poor reason to not listen to residents.
There are a few silly speed limits around. One glaring example is Crowe River Road. No speed signs so it is, therefore, a 50 kph road. Given the small number of dwellings this road should be signed and the limit safely increased to 60 or 70 kph. At present, when you turn off this road into Petherick's Corners the speed limit increases to 60 kph in the hamlet , which is absurd.
Enforcement stops speeding. This is from someone who has a work history. Enforcement has come a long way. The Chief of Norwood in the early sixties who was also the Town Foreman had the distance between Hydro poles marked out and used a stopwatch, only had to take the lic. Plate and once a week went into Ptbo. And the Justice of the Peace prepared and sent out the tickets. OPP in 64 had a radar on a tripod and radar machine was powered by cables attached to the battery. Technology has come a long way. Photo radar could be purchased and have it moved to where the complaints are. It could be in a box along the road or hung on a pole to stop vandalism. Stirling is considering it and Belleville has it. It would be cost effective, not only stopping speeding but part of the fines comes back to the Municipality. Cheaper than hiring more police. Would help the bottom line and curb speeding if it could be moved around. Trent Hills has the equipment to move it around. Council needs to consider this. Thanks to Councillor Savery voting against $5000.00 to do a study.
I agree 100 per cent about photo radar. It would increase enforcement and free up our handful of OPP officers to focus on crimes that technology can't fight.
I want to do a story about the area towns that are adding radar machines -- Brighton, Stirling, not sure who else.
Perhaps signage wouldn't seem so expensive if they weren't spending money on a consultant who they may or may not listen to.....
What precedent is the councillor referring to when discussing the concern of slippery slope? He is just assuming that is what would happen? What a poor reason to not listen to residents.
I agree, it is bizarre reasoning -- why would council want to discourage other residents from also wanting their streets to be safer?